BPM004287-Eval_Consensus_Report_Consultant_Services.pdf

EVALUATION REPORT

Solicitation No. BPM004287 Description:

Rating Definitions for Criteria 1 and 2

Formula for Scoring Overall Price (Criteria 3)

Rating Definitions for Criteria 4

Does not comply - Several Exceptions

Total Score

Weight 1 - Method of Approach = 500 points

500 1.1 Method of Approach Meets Expectations 250 Meets Expectations 250 Meets Expectations 250 Meets Expectations 250 Below Expectation 125 Below Expectation 125 Meets Expectations 250 Meets Expectations 250 Below Expectation 125

Weight

2 - Experience, Expertise, Reliability, Capacity of Organization and Key Personnel = 400 points

2.1 Experience, Expertise and Reliability of

Offeror's Key Personnel and Organization Meets Expectations 200 Meets Expectations 200 Meets Expectations 200 Meets Expectations 200 Below Expectation 100 Meets Expectations 200 Meets Expectations 200 Meets Expectations 200 Below Expectation 100

Weight 3 - Overall Price Proposal = 100 points

100 (47.77/78.05)*100 61 (47.77/77.005)*100 62 (47.77/74.49)*100 64 (47.77/103.50)*100 46 (47.77/98.93)*100 48 (47.77/209.62)*100 23 (47.77/108.35)*100 44 (47.77/47.77)*100 100 (47.77/100.21)*100 48

Comments

[[HUTZEL AND ASSOCIATES

INC]]

JRM ENVIRONMENTAL INC NINYO AND MOORE

PARTNER ENGINEERING AND

SCIENCE INC

Sevee and Maher Engineers

TERRACON

CONSULTANTS INC

WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES

WOOD ENVIRONMENT &

INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS

INC

Total Score 406 511 366 378 277 494 509 360

Weight 1 - Method of Approach = 500 points 125 250 125 125 125 250 250 125

500 1.1 Method of Approach Below Expectation 125 Meets Expectations 250 Below Expectation 125 Meets Expectations 250 Below Expectation 125 Below Expectation 125 Below Expectation 125 Meets Expectations 250 Meets Expectations 250 Below Expectation 125

Supplier did not address 2 out of the 5 questions that were asked. Did not address air sampling and lead inspections

Methodology was lacking -No answer for alternate methods

Methodology was lacking. Did not provide alternate methods

Inspections MOA was explanatory , ALternate methods was lacking. MOA for perimeter Air sampling (PAS) lacking.

Alternate methods approach was lacking. Air sampling methodology does not address perimeter air sampling method

Weight

2 - Experience, Expertise, Reliability, Capacity of Organization and Key Personnel = 400 points 200 200 200 200 100 200 200 200

2.1 Experience, Expertise and Reliability of

Offeror's Key Personnel and Organization Below Expectation 100 Below Expectation 100 Meets Expectations 200 Meets Expectations 200 Meets Expectations 200 Meets Expectations 200 Below Expectation 100 Meets Expectations 200 Meets Expectations 200 Meets Expectations 200

No EPA Lead certs for the org, No Lead Inspector’s Cert provided, Weight 3 - Overall Price Proposal = 100 points 81 61 41 53 52 44 59 35

100 (47.77/83.86)*100 57 (47.77/125.81)*100 38 (47.77/58.88)*100 81 (47.77/78.97)*100 61 (47.77/116.48)*100 41 (47.77/90.92)*100 53 (47.77/91.53)*100 52 (47.77/109.15)*100 44 (47.77/80.47)*100 59 (47.77/136.80)*100 35

Comments

(DEQ Sr. Procurement Specialist) Date

Evaluator Name:Travis Barnum(ADEQ) Date

Evaluator Name:David Jaggers(DES) Date

Evaluator Name: Kenneth Morris(DOT) Date

"Statewide Asbestos , Lead and Mold Consultant Services, and Abatement Services"

For each evaluation criteria that follows, a determination was made regarding how well the proposals satisfied the stated requirements. The rating definitions, found below, formed the basis

Offerors ACT ENVIRONMENTAL INC ADAMS AND WENDT INC.

Exceeds Expectations = Proposal is very detailed, indicates a clear understanding of the RFP and provides innovative or Above Expectations = Proposal meets all requirement(s) outlined in the RFP but also provides a response that goes Meets Expectations = Proposal meets requirement(s) outlined in the RFP.

Below Expectation = Proposal doesn’t fully meet or doesn’t completely address requirement(s) of the RFP

ENVIRONMENTAL FORENSICS

ARIZONA ENVIRONMENTAL

SPECIALISTS LLC

Atlas Technical Consultants LLC AZTEC ENGINEERING GROUP INC CLARK SEIF CLARK INC

DOMINION ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSULTANTS INCs

EMC2 LLC

Unacceptable = Elements of the proposal that are unacceptable to the State.

Lowest Price / Offered Price X Maximum Points = Awarded Points

Complies with no exceptions Complies with minimal exceptions

494 550 273511 512 514 496 273 348

250 250 125250 250 250 250 125 125

Supplier provided information on the regulations, but did not say how they will approach it. Discussion on Negative Exposure Assessment (NEA) is lacking.

Did not provide information on alternate methods. Did not list floor plans

Inspection methodology was lacking, perimeter air sampling was lacking

200 200 100200 200 200 200 100 200

Project examples did not reflect the SOW in the solicitation. Personnel has Limited formal education and experience in the type of work they would be expected to perform

Listed key personnel from a competing entity as their key personnel and as sub-contractors

44 100 4861 62 64 46 48 23

FMF PANDION

ENVIROPRO CONSULTANTS

Project Design methodology was extremely lacking. Described the Inspection Report, but failed to provide details of the deliverable, Incorrect description methods and perimeter air sampling was inadequate.

Merrilyn Forbin

The members of the evaluation committee have completed their review and reached consensus regarding the proposals received in response to Solicitation No. BPM004287_ for "Statewide Asbestos, Lead and Mold Consultant And Abatement Services". This evaluation report accurately and completely reflects the opinion of the committee as a whole. Therefore, in accordance with Solicitation Instructions to Offerors, Section 5 (Responsibility, Responsiveness, and Susceptibility )and , Section 6 (Evaluation of Offers)and Section 7,(Award of Contract) it is recommended that it would be in the best interest of the State to make an award to the following Contractors:

66% of the proposed key personnel for the core services are FTEs of another entity. Their experience was limited to Inspection and did not demonstrate any oversight experience.

Offerors

Limited # of personnel. Project examples were very limited in size. The experience was limited to demolition and emergency response(ER)s.

5/5/2023

5/4/2023

5/5/2023 5/4/2023

Consulting Services